"FBI" raids President Trump's Home in Florida

[Coeurd’Alene J]

This is a cleanup by the Washington DC fbi. Remove any evidence of wrong doing against President Trump. The deep state is covering for the Obama Presidency and the illegal spying that they did on the Trump

[seattlefan-daBronx]

FBI panties sniffers.jpg (124.93 KiB) Viewed 558 times

[gil]

Interesting article. Basically the guy points out that the FBI/DOJ don't have a leg to stand on!

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/20 ... erage.html

I disagree. He is getting into the weeds with details here. I think the main thing Trump should worry about is whether he violated the Espionage Act. And then there is the possible obstruction of justice.

[D-train]

I agree that if Trump has docs he isn't supposed to have it is another unforced error on his part but Espionage? F-ing ridiculous.

[gil]

Espionage Act. https://news.yahoo.com/espionage-act-us ... 04005.html

From the article:

What does the act mean for Trump?

It is not clear why Trump had classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. There is no evidence yet that he was planning to release the material. Nevertheless, mishandling sensitive documents and removing them from a secure facility is still prohibited — and can put national secrets at risk.

It may be difficult to determine who precisely brought the secret documents to Mar-a-Lago, who decided to store them there and the extent of Trump’s direct involvement. It is also possible that if there were no unauthorized disclosure of the documents and prosecutors do not find any criminal intent, the Justice Department could decide not to prosecute. That could make an investigation into why the documents were taken to Mar-a-Lago particularly crucial.

One important caveat: The Espionage Act includes a gross negligence standard, meaning a prosecutor does not have to prove criminal intent. Still, legal experts say that for the government, the priority is probably retrieving classified and sensitive documents — and making sure they are properly stored rather than being in a box at Mar-a-Lago. If the government thinks it has reclaimed all of the secret documents, prosecutors could decide not to proceed further with a legal case. But how the investigation will unfold is unclear.

But what is clear, experts said, is that no matter Trump’s intent, the First Amendment is not at issue in this instance, unlike in leak cases.

“That is not a free-speech issue,” said Glenn Gerstell, former general counsel for the National Security Agency. “There is no First Amendment right to take national defense information out of secure facilities and take it home.”

[D-train]

Espionage Act. https://news.yahoo.com/espionage-act-us ... 04005.html

From the article:

What does the act mean for Trump?

It is not clear why Trump had classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. There is no evidence yet that he was planning to release the material. Nevertheless, mishandling sensitive documents and removing them from a secure facility is still prohibited — and can put national secrets at risk.

It may be difficult to determine who precisely brought the secret documents to Mar-a-Lago, who decided to store them there and the extent of Trump’s direct involvement. It is also possible that if there were no unauthorized disclosure of the documents and prosecutors do not find any criminal intent, the Justice Department could decide not to prosecute. That could make an investigation into why the documents were taken to Mar-a-Lago particularly crucial.

One important caveat: The Espionage Act includes a gross negligence standard, meaning a prosecutor does not have to prove criminal intent. Still, legal experts say that for the government, the priority is probably retrieving classified and sensitive documents — and making sure they are properly stored rather than being in a box at Mar-a-Lago. If the government thinks it has reclaimed all of the secret documents, prosecutors could decide not to proceed further with a legal case. But how the investigation will unfold is unclear.

But what is clear, experts said, is that no matter Trump’s intent, the First Amendment is not at issue in this instance, unlike in leak cases.

“That is not a free-speech issue,” said Glenn Gerstell, former general counsel for the National Security Agency. “There is no First Amendment right to take national defense information out of secure facilities and take it home.”

Happy to wager $10k that Trump isn't charged with Espionage. 10-1 odds so you only have to pay $1000. Deadline is year end.

[gil]

Espionage Act. https://news.yahoo.com/espionage-act-us ... 04005.html

From the article:

What does the act mean for Trump?

It is not clear why Trump had classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. There is no evidence yet that he was planning to release the material. Nevertheless, mishandling sensitive documents and removing them from a secure facility is still prohibited — and can put national secrets at risk.

It may be difficult to determine who precisely brought the secret documents to Mar-a-Lago, who decided to store them there and the extent of Trump’s direct involvement. It is also possible that if there were no unauthorized disclosure of the documents and prosecutors do not find any criminal intent, the Justice Department could decide not to prosecute. That could make an investigation into why the documents were taken to Mar-a-Lago particularly crucial.

One important caveat: The Espionage Act includes a gross negligence standard, meaning a prosecutor does not have to prove criminal intent. Still, legal experts say that for the government, the priority is probably retrieving classified and sensitive documents — and making sure they are properly stored rather than being in a box at Mar-a-Lago. If the government thinks it has reclaimed all of the secret documents, prosecutors could decide not to proceed further with a legal case. But how the investigation will unfold is unclear.

But what is clear, experts said, is that no matter Trump’s intent, the First Amendment is not at issue in this instance, unlike in leak cases.

“That is not a free-speech issue,” said Glenn Gerstell, former general counsel for the National Security Agency. “There is no First Amendment right to take national defense information out of secure facilities and take it home.”

Happy to wager $10k that Trump isn't charged with Espionage. 10-1 odds so you only have to pay $1000. Deadline is year end.

I'm not much of a betting man, but I'll be very surprised if Trump is changed with anything by the AG/Justice Department.

[D-train]

That's what I thought.

[D-train]

They walk the great Mike Ford to get to Adell. lol

[gil]

That's what I thought.

Also, *IF* there is an indictment under the Espionage Act, the history of such charges suggest it would be in a year or two (as the case is built), not in a few months after the evidence is seized.